Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
05/11/2018 11:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB142 | |
| Amendments | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 142 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 11, 2018
3:44 p.m.
3:44:45 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 3:44 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Rob Carpenter, Analyst, Legislative Finance Division;
Representative Gary Knopp; Representative Louise Stutes;
Representative Tiffany Zulkosky.
SUMMARY
CSSB 142(FIN) AM
APPROP: CAPITAL BUDGET
CSSB 142(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
CSSB 142(FIN) AM
"An Act making appropriations, including capital
appropriations, supplemental appropriations,
reappropriations, and other appropriations; amending
appropriations; making appropriations to capitalize
funds; and providing for an effective date."
3:46:09 PM
Representative Pruitt stated he had received a list of
House Finance Committee Majority amendments that the
committee would accept and the Majority amendments the
committee would let pass. He asked if the process had been
predetermined and whether the meeting was a waste of time.
He found the list that had been found by staff on a copy
machine disturbing. He hoped the committee would have a
debate on the amendments and make decisions based on good
policy, not on something that had been predetermined. He
hoped the document was an error.
Representative Kawasaki relayed that he did not have a copy
of the list. He asked if someone could provide a copy. [a
committee member provided the list to Representative
Kawasaki.]
Co-Chair Foster replied that the committee would have a
debate and debate could sway people's minds. He believed
all of the groups had met to discuss things they were
interested in, but a debate would occur. He relayed that
committee members were free to vote as they wished.
Representative Pruitt communicated he had wanted
confirmation that the list was not something the co-chairs
had distributed or that the voting had been predetermined.
He expected the amendment process to be the amendment
process and that members would listen to the debate and
allow the discussion.
^AMENDMENTS
3:48:32 PM
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy
on file):
Insert Section 1:
Agency:
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development/ Grants to Named Recipients (AS 37.05
.316)
Project:
Interior Alaska Land Trust - Goldstream Valley Public
Use Land Restoration
Amount: $200,000
Funding Source: Unrestricted General Funds (code 1004-
UGF)
Explanation:
Funds would go to IALT to expand the Goldstream Public
Use Area (GPUA) and connect fragmented parcels to
ensure and provide additional multi-user recreational
opportunities.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Representative Guttenberg reviewed the amendment pertaining
to the Interior Alaska Land Trust - Goldstream Valley
Public Use Land Restoration. He believed that the multiuse
area across the Goldstream Valley had been ongoing since
the mid-1980s. The effort had been to make access for
hunters, snow machines, skiers, trappers, and others using
the trail. He detailed the area was made up of a
conglomerate of checkerboard parcels. At times there was
restrictive crossing because of private property. The funds
would go towards parcels for sale that would continue to
enhance the area for public use.
3:49:49 PM
Representative Wilson spoke in opposition to the amendment.
She remarked that in the past legislators had been able to
take funds back to their districts when oil prices had been
higher. She understood what the funds would be utilized
for, but the state did not have money.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster,
Seaton
OPPOSED: Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Pruitt
The MOTION PASSED (7/4). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
3:51:02 PM
Representative Tilton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 30-
GS2565\N.1 (Martin, 5/9/18) (copy on file):
Page 3, following line 20:
Insert new material to read:
APPROPRIATION ITEMS 75,000
GENERAL FUND 75,000
Fraternal Order of Alaska State Troopers, Inc. -
Community and Neighborhood Watch Grants (HD 1-40)
Adjust fund sources and totals accordingly.
Page 18, lines 10- 13:
Delete all material.
Adjust fund sources and totals accordingly.
Co-Chair Seaton OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Tilton explained the amendment would
transfer funding in the budget for community neighborhood
allocated to the Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development (DCCED) to the Fraternal Order of the
Alaska State Troopers for administering. She elaborated
that the Fraternal Order of the Alaska State Troopers
already administered grants and was willing to administer
the neighborhood watch program. She believed there was no
better group to administer the program than retired
troopers who were already involved in the state's
neighborhoods and were aware of how to help communities
combat crime.
Representative Guttenberg asked if the neighborhood watch
was a specific organization or generalized. He reasoned
that $75,000 was not a significant amount to spread
statewide.
Representative Tilton responded that the $75,000 in the
line item was meant to go to the neighborhood watch program
throughout the state. She did not know how long the program
had been in existence.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if the amendment would insert the
appropriation on page 3, line 20 of version N of the bill.
3:53:31 PM
Representative Tilton answered the appropriation would move
from page 18, lines 10 through 13 (under grants
administered by DCCED) to grants to named recipients on
page 3, line 20 (to the Fraternal Order of the Alaska State
Troopers for community and neighborhood watch). The dollar
amount would remain the same.
Co-Chair Seaton spoke to his objection. He believed there
was accountability through DCCED, whereas a private
organization had a different kind of accountability.
Vice-Chair Gara stated he had always supported neighborhood
watch. He had not seen state money to fund it in the past.
He asked the amendment sponsor to address the issue in
closing remarks.
Representative Kawasaki spoke in support of the first part
of the amendment. He had been in contact with the Fraternal
Order of the Alaska State Troopers about how the
organization would distribute the funds statewide. The
organization was statewide and had a chapter in Fairbanks.
He did not support the bottom half of the amendment. He
believed there was accountability through DCCED.
Representative Tilton asked Vice-Chair Gara to repeat his
question.
Vice-Chair Gara replied that he had never seen state
funding for neighborhood watch in the past. He thought it
had been a volunteer program in the past.
Representative Tilton replied that the neighborhood watch
program had been a volunteer program administered through
the Alaska State Troopers by a particular person receiving
support from the troopers. She explained that it was no
longer the case. The increase in community crime had
resulted in an outcry for increased patrol from
constituents. The $75,000 had originally been included in
the budget by the Senate under grants administered by
DCCED. The amendment would transfer the grant
administration from DCCED to Fraternal Order of the Alaska
State Troopers. She elaborated that the organization was
comprised of retired troopers and already administered
grants. The organization was willing to administer the
funds to help neighborhoods get signage and to get their
watch programs up and running.
3:57:22 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
Co-Chair Foster also objected to the amendment. He asked
for clarification from Representative Kawasaki.
Representative Kawasaki answered that he thought the
amendment would come in a different form. He supported the
Fraternal Order of the Alaska State Troopers and reiterated
there was a chapter in Fairbanks that was a reliable
nonprofit. He did not support the bottom portion that
transferred the grant from DCCED.
Co-Chair Foster noted that he had spoken with
Representative Neuman who supported the amendment.
Representative Wilson MOVED to AMEND Amendment 2 to delete
lines 11 and 12. She did not believe it mattered whether
the budget increment appeared under the grants to named
recipients or under DCCED. She believed it was more
important to have the right organization administering the
grant to ensure it was utilized in the proper way.
Representative Pruitt stated the proposed amendment to
Amendment 2 would double the funding. He did not believe
that was the intent.
Representative Wilson requested an "at ease."
3:59:37 PM
AT EASE
4:07:32 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster noted the committee was addressing
Amendment 2.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2.
Representative Tilton WITHDREW Amendment 2.
Representative Tilton MOVED conceptual Amendment 2.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Tilton explained the amendment would change
the name from Community and Neighborhood Watch Grants for
Named Recipients to Fraternal Order of the Alaska State
Troopers and Community and Neighborhood Watch Grants on
page 18, lines 10 through 13.
Co-Chair Foster asked Representative Kawasaki if the
proposed amendment met his intent.
Representative Kawasaki replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Seaton asked whether the Fraternal Order of the
Alaska State Troopers would be administering the grants
through all districts (1-40) or whether it would be
specific to a couple of areas where the organization had
headquarters.
Co-Chair Foster asked to hear from the Legislative Finance
Division.
4:10:31 PM
ROB CARPENTER, ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION, asked
for clarification on the question.
Co-Chair Seaton complied. He explained that DCCED had
criteria for issuing the grants statewide. He did not know
if the Fraternal Order of the Alaska State Troopers had the
same kind of criteria and whether it was statewide or had
headquarters in several communities that would receive the
money. The language specified districts 1 through 40, but
he did not know whether the organization administered
grants in all of the districts the way the department did.
He wondered if the language change would drastically change
the number, the amounts, and the way the grants were
administered.
Mr. Carpenter answered that he did not know how the
Fraternal Order of the Alaska State Troopers would manage
the funds. The intent of the original appropriation was to
allow all organizations within the state to apply for the
grants including municipalities and nonprofits. Based on
testimony he believed the Fraternal Order of the Alaska
State Troopers would manage it that way, but he did not
know that for a fact.
Representative Tilton added that the Fraternal Order of the
Alaska State Troopers currently administered grants
throughout the state. She believed they would be able to
administer the grant statewide.
Co-Chair Seaton was uncertain the grant criteria used by
DCCED would be the same criteria used by the Fraternal
Order of the Alaska State Troopers. He stated the amendment
would change the complexity and possible qualifications of
different organizations and community neighborhood watch
programs. He was not willing to change the complexity of
the entire grant program by adopting the amendment.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
Co-Chair Seaton OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt
conceptual Amendment 2.
IN FAVOR: Grenn, Kawasaki, Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton,
Wilson, Gara, Foster
OPPOSED: Guttenberg, Ortiz, Seaton
The MOTION PASSED (8/3). There being NO further OBJECTION,
conceptual Amendment 2 was ADOPTED.
4:14:26 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3 (copy on file):
Page 4, Line 10-11:
Delete: Berth 4 Dock Expansion
Insert: Berths Expansion
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Seaton explained that the amendment would remove
the reference to berth 4, pertaining to a dock expansion in
Ketchikan. The change would allow the funds to be used for
any of the berths instead of only berth 4.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 3. The amendment would insert the numbers 1,
2, and 3.
Co-Chair Seaton OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson stated that berth 4 was privately
owned. She did not know why the state would contribute
funding to a privately owned berth. She stated that berths
1, 2, and 3 were owned by the community. She had no issue
with state money going towards the community owned berths.
She believed the privately owned berth charged the
community a per passenger fee, which she found strange if
the state was providing expansion funds. She did not want
to begin putting money into private hands in order for
someone to profit versus helping out the municipality.
Representative Ortiz shared that the appropriation came
from the other body. The intent of the conceptual amendment
addressed docks 1, 2, and 3. He reported that the city
manager would have control of the funds and he had learned
in discussions with the manager that dock 3 was not in the
ballgame in terms of an expandable dock. He believed it was
a nonworkable conceptual amendment.
Representative Thompson needed clarification. He stated
that berth 4 was privately owned, and the City of Ketchikan
owned berths 1, 2, and 3. He asked for verification the
funds would be given to a private company.
4:17:29 PM
Representative Ortiz responded the original amendment would
remove the specific berth 4 expansion language and would
replace it with "berths expansion." He stated the
appropriation was under city grants meaning the city
manager would have control over the funds. He could not
speak to how the funds would be allocated by the manager.
He believed the original amendment addressed the concerns
of the conceptual amendment sponsor.
Representative Wilson stated that the conceptual amendment
was workable because the city could spend the money on
berths 1 through 3; without the conceptual amendment funds
could be allocated to berth 4. She had verified by email
that the berth was co-owned by several Ketchikan families
and the Ketchikan Dock Company, which was a private
corporation. She believed the amendment was necessary if
the legislature wanted to ensure the funds would go to
berths 1 through 3. Otherwise there would be nothing
stopping DCCED from allocating funds to berth 4. She did
not want to go down a road where the state put money into a
private entity that charged money to the municipality for
use.
Representative Ortiz clarified that the funds were cruise
ship passenger vessel funds.
Representative Wilson noted that the dedicated funds would
go towards helping a private owner become more profitable.
4:20:51 PM
Vice-Chair Gara asked if the funds were cruise ship head
tax funds.
Representative Ortiz replied in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Gara asked for verification that the funds had
to be used for port projects.
Representative Ortiz replied yes.
Representative Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION to conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 3.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Kawasaki, Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Guttenberg, Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Foster, Seaton
The MOTION to adopt conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 3
FAILED (5/6).
4:22:02 PM
Representative Wilson spoke to her objection to Amendment
3. She did not care about the fund source, but that the
funds were coming through the state. She did not want to
start a precedent to give private companies money. She was
concerned the amendment would put Ketchikan at a
disadvantage because the funds could go towards a private
entity. She speculated that the city also had work needed
on berths 1 through 3. She MAINTAINED her OBJECTION to
Amendment 3.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Kawasaki, Ortiz, Pruitt, Thompson, Gara, Grenn,
Guttenberg, Seaton, Foster
OPPOSED: Tilton, Wilson
The MOTION PASSED (9/2). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 3 was ADOPTED.
4:23:37 PM
Representative Wilson WITHDREW Amendment 4 (copy on file).
Representative Grenn MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 5 (copy on
file):
By: Representative Jason Grenn
Representative Les Gara
Insert Section 1:
Agency:
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development
Grants to Municipalities (AS 37.05.315)
Project: Anchorage - Port of Anchorage (HD 12-28)
Amount: $20 million
Funding Source: 1004 Gen Fund (UGF)
Project: Nome - Support for Design of an Arctic Deep
Draft Port at Nome to -40 MLLW (HD 39)
Amount: $1.6 million
Funding Source: l 004 Gen Fund (UGF)
Explanation:
Port of Anchorage: This project reconstructs the Port
of Anchorage's aging infrastructure. The Port is a
vital asset in Alaska's economy. It handles more than
3.5 million tons of food, materials, vehicles,
clothing, fuel and other goods annually. Half of the
cargo that moves through the Port is delivered to
final destinations outside of Anchorage and directly
benefits 85 percent of all Alaskans. The Port is
Alaska's only U.S. Commercial Strategic Seaport, one
of 16 nationwide. Phase one of this reconstruction
project is scheduled to begin in 2018. This state
project is contingent on the Municipality of Anchorage
providing the remaining necessary funding to complete
Phase one, estimated to be $87,000,000.
Port of Nome: Supports the design of an Arctic Deep
Draft Port at Nome, as part of a larger maritime
infrastructure system in the U.S. Arctic. There are 54
communities in Norton Sound and the Bering Strait
region that rely heavily upon the Port of Nome as a
transshipment point for fuel, equipment and supplies.
As the only existing marine trade center for the
Arctic, expansion is critical to ensure timely
development of the Nation's first Arctic access deep
draft port, as a support facility for military assets.
Based on existing infrastructure, construction could
begin as soon as 2023.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Representative Grenn reviewed the amendment. The amendment
included $20 million for the Port of Anchorage and $1.6
million for the for the design of an Arctic deep draft port
in Nome. He referred to the Port of Anchorage as the Port
of Alaska and explained that the $20 million would be used
for the reconstruction of the aging infrastructure
surrounding the port. Phase one of the reconstruction
project was scheduled to begin later in the year. He noted
it was remarkable the port functioned and operated as it
did, given the docks aging pilings that had lost three-
quarters of their original thickness. He had been told the
reduced load capacity was expected to cause existing docks
to close with ten years regardless of repairs. Phase one of
the project involved reconstruction, not expansion. The
Port of Alaska delivered 3.5 million tons of food,
materials and other items and impacted 85 percent of all
Alaskans. The funding would be matched by the Municipality
of Anchorage. Like the state's airports, he believed the
port was vital to the state's economy.
Representative Grenn explained the second part of the
amendment pertaining to the Port of Nome. The funds would
go towards the design of a deep draft port starting in the
next few years. He urged support for the amendment.
Representative Wilson asked how many grants or bonds had
been issued through the state for the Port of Anchorage.
She could not recall if state funding had been utilized for
construction. She thought there had been an issue with a
contractor installing pilings incorrectly. She wondered if
some of the money would go to correct the problem.
Representative Grenn clarified it was the Port of Alaska
[facetiously]. He confirmed there had been an expansion
project in the past ten years that had some faulty design
based on the surrounding waters and environment. There had
been state funds allocated, but he did not have the
information.
4:27:16 PM
Vice-Chair Gara shared that he referred to the port as the
Port of Anchorage because it did not serve the entire
state. He acknowledged the importance of the project.
Historically he had questioned when the project cost had
ballooned up to $1.2 billion, but the current scope had
been scaled back to an affordable amount. The
reconstruction was necessary to prevent the docks from
crumbling. The port would not exist in its current form in
ten years' time if new dock space was not constructed. He
reported there had been prior state grants of $10 million
and $20 million back when he thought there had not been a
plan. He remarked that there was now a plan. He did not
know if the state had bonded for the project in the past.
The port issued revenue bonds but had limited capacity.
Representative Wilson asked about the [Port of Anchorage
reconstruction] fee structure the committee had heard about
in a previous meeting. She wondered how much money the port
had set aside over the years to take care of reconstruction
needs.
Representative Grenn did not have the information. He had
learned from speaking with the port director that they
would need to raise money somehow as the project moved
forward. The state's investment would help offset any
tariff and shipping fee increases that may occur. The
proposed appropriation was the state's investment to help
limit fees to Alaskans.
Representative Wilson understood the funds would help. She
acknowledged that a plan could exist, but she had not yet
seen one. She wondered how the situation would not recur in
the future if the dock reached a certain state of
disrepair. She believed tariffs and fees should be set
aside by the port with the understanding that any
infrastructure aged (e.g. roads and ports). She was trying
to understand how the port could have prevented the
situation in the first place.
4:30:04 PM
Vice-Chair Gara replied that the port had a plan. The
amendment represented a tiny portion of the overall
reconstruction cost needed to ensure the docks did not
degrade beyond repair. He emphasized that the pilings were
eroding. The total project was roughly $350 million in
addition to settlement money the Municipality of Anchorage
was receiving for the faulty construction. The money would
go towards helping a project that would otherwise be passed
on to Alaskans in housing, grocery, and other costs.
Representative Wilson countered there would have to be
additional fees. She reasoned the $20 million was a band
aid to get closer to the overall cost. She asked for the
total cost and wondered if it was $1.2 billion.
Representative Grenn replied that phase one would cost
about $80 million. The entire project would cost about $700
million and was expected to begin in the summer (2018) and
last seven to eight years. Funding sources were a
combination of port revenues, state funds, federal funds,
private funds, and litigation proceeds from the past
expansion project.
4:32:44 PM
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Pruitt, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Foster,
Seaton
OPPOSED: Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Kawasaki
The MOTION PASSED (7/4). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 5 was ADOPTED.
4:33:34 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 6 (copy on
file):
Page 5, Lines 7 and 8
Agency: Environmental Conservation
Project: Wrangell Junkyard Contaminated Site Cleanup
(HD 36)
Amount: Delete All
Funding Source: DGF 1052
Representative Ortiz OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson reviewed the amendment. She spoke to
past discussion about moving $5 million from undesignated
general funds (UGF) to designated general funds (DGF). The
allocation in the budget changed policy testified to by the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The policy
was to find a safe and affordable way to deal with the
contamination, which had been done. Part of the community
was fine with leaving the contamination at the Wrangell
junkyard. She had learned that if the contaminated material
would have to be driven through town to be shipped
somewhere. There was significant concern by the community
about driving the materials through town. She elaborated
that tourists, children, and others could be exposed.
Deletion of the funds would not stop the project. She
explained that if the community chose against using the
safe site selected by DEC, it would have to pay for an
alternative. She detailed that if the selected site was
used the funds could be utilized. She was concerned that
she had heard from the contractor who had obtained the rock
and it sounded like he may be out the money because the
plans were changing. She believed when a contract was made
it should be upheld.
4:35:29 PM
Representative Ortiz spoke to his objection. He recalled
DEC testimony that the led and other contamination was some
of the worst the department had seen. He asked members to
consider how residents at Cheena Lake near Fairbanks, Sand
Lake in Anchorage, or Auke Lake in Juneau would feel about
a disposal site put in a main recreation area similar to
those locations. The chosen site in Wrangell was above the
main recreation lake and had important traditional uses by
the local tribe. He emphasized the concern by the community
was understandable. He had been to the proposed site that
sat directly above the lake - there was ditch drainage in
the immediate proximity of the site. He had a letter from
the Wrangell Assembly communicating its preference to have
the led contaminates removed from the island. The vast
majority of comments he had received from the community
were in support of the removal of the contaminates from the
island. There had been some comments, particularly from the
contractor who stood to benefit from moving the
contaminates to the original proposed site, but after
speaking to DEC he understood that the same contractor
would be a part of the removal of the materials. The
individual would not be completely out the resources.
4:38:43 PM
Representative Guttenberg voiced opposition to the
amendment. He observed that deleting the money did not take
away the responsibility of DEC to the community of
Wrangell. He reasoned that using the quarry may be the
easier step, but the community had voiced its opinion that
the option was not appropriate. He stated that eliminating
the money did not eliminate DEC's responsibility or
transfer the responsibility to the borough or Ketchikan.
Representative Wilson responded that deleting the funds did
not remove the issue from DEC's hands. The amendment
specified that the state would not start a policy if a
community was unhappy with DEC's decision and wanted to go
a more expensive route that the legislature would force the
department to use contaminated site money to do the work.
She stated that the issue was about whether members
believed DEC's testimony that it had found a safe location
for the materials; use of the site would allow the
department to utilize clean up funds. The amendment
vocalized that the committee did not believe the funding
was a policy it should be setting. Once the legislature set
the policy communities in the future would have the ability
to make their own choices and it would be difficult for DEC
to deny them. She thought it communicated the cost and
safety did not matter. Additionally, she thought it
conveyed that how the community felt, even if it was untrue
and the site was safe, would mean more than following
policy as it had been set thus far.
4:41:04 PM
Vice-Chair Gara remarked that the amendment could have been
easily written as a non-budget item. There was a hazardous
waste fund that was funded by a per barrel fee of
approximately 7 cents per barrel of oil and 1 cent of the
state's fuel tax. The budget increment represented
hazardous waste of the worst kind. One way to fund the work
would have been to give DEC approval to use money from the
fund and it would not have shown up in the budget as an
appropriation. He believed the co-chairs had been more
transparent by putting it in as an appropriation item. The
funds were not used for schools or public safety; the fund
was specifically for hazardous waste. He believed it was
honest budgeting.
Representative Wilson stressed that $8 million had already
come out of the fund for cleanup without an appropriation.
She agreed it was part of the process. She furthered that
DEC had treated the site and had located a safe site to
move the materials. She stated that they had $14 million to
utilize for the project. She spoke about setting precedence
for overriding the safe alternative and going a more
expensive route. She did not know where the $5 million
figure came from because the backup materials provided did
not reflect that a decision had been made about where to
send the contaminated materials. She continued that the
contaminated material would have to be trucked through town
and put on a barge. She did not believe it was about truth
in budgeting but about changing the policy, which was her
concern. She wanted the site cleaned up and had no problem
allocating the money for cleanup, but she did not support
telling DEC that its work to determine a site was not good
enough.
4:44:33 PM
Representative Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Tilton, Wilson, Foster
OPPOSED: Thompson, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki,
Ortiz, Seaton
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 6 FAILED (4/7).
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representatives Louise Stutes,
Gary Knopp, and Tiffanie Zulkosky in the audience.
4:45:46 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 7 (copy on
file):
Page 5, Line 11 First Time Service Projects (HD I-40)
Agency: Environmental Conservation
Project: Village Safe Water and Wastewater
Infrastructure Projects
Amount: Delete $3,000,000
Funding Source: UGF 1004
Page 5, Lines 13 Expansion, Upgrade, and Replacement
of Existing Service (HD 1-40)
Project: Village Safe Water and Wastewater
Infrastructure Projects
Amount: Delete $3,000,000
Funding Source: UGF 1004
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson reviewed the amendment. The amendment
would remove $6 million that had been added. The amendment
would leave $35,898,000 for first time service projects for
village safe water and waste water infrastructure projects
and $28,932,000 for the expansion, upgrade, and replacement
of existing services. She stated the remaining substantial
amounts were still large enough to keep the projects going
forward for the next year or two.
Co-Chair Foster asked whether the amendment would delete
the full $6 million or half of the amount.
Representative Wilson replied the amendment would delete $6
million - $3 million from first time service projects and
$3 million from the expansion, upgrade, and replacement of
existing service.
Co-Chair Foster spoke to his objection. He addressed life
safety and health issues facing Alaska and believed village
safe water and wastewater infrastructure projects were at
the top of the list in terms of importance. He discussed
that many rural communities in his district still used
honey buckets. He highlighted that there were children who
got sick and could not make it to school because of the
conditions. He was passionate about the issue and he
supported maintaining the funding.
Representative Wilson agreed the cause was important, but
she did not support spending the funds in the current year.
The amendment would leave $64 million for the projects,
which she did not believe the state would spend in the next
year. She understood that most of the projects could be
multi-year, but she reasoned more funds could be added the
next year if needed. She did not believe the entire $64
million would be spent in one year. She continued that as
oil prices increased there would be funds available.
Vice-Chair Gara MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Pruitt
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster,
Seaton
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 7 FAILED (4/7).
4:49:02 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 8 (copy on
file):
Page 8, Line 31
Agency: Public Safety
Project: Enhanced "9-1-1" (HD 1-40)
Amount: Delete $3,535,000
Funding Source: UGF 1004
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson reviewed the amendment. She detailed
she had met with the commissioner several weeks earlier
about the $9.1 million project; phase one of the project
was $3,535,000. Currently Fairbanks, Ketchikan, Mat-Su, and
Kenai all had 911 areas where people phoned the state
police. She explained that the service was run by the
Alaska State Troopers (AST) in Fairbanks and Ketchikan.
There was a $3 million contract with Mat-Su and Kenai that
would ultimately go away with enhanced 911. She had
received a significant amount of information from Kenai
where there was a concern about whether a centralized
system could take care of the entire state. She described
the system and used Fairbanks as an example. She detailed
that a call in Fairbanks would go through the Fairbanks 911
system because the type of emergency was not known (e.g.
police or medical) and whoever answered the phone would
determine how to route the call. The same process was true
for Kenai. She explained that if the E-911 project went
through, Kenai would still need its facility for local
emergencies.
Representative Wilson detailed that state police did not
call out fire stations or ambulances - the work was done by
local government entities. She continued that the local
facilities would have fewer people to work if the plan went
through, but they would still receive the call and would
transfer AST calls to the facility in Anchorage. She stated
there would be a savings of $300 million, but there would
be an annual cost of $500,000. The system would mean local
entities would have to do more things with fewer people
because the middle-man would not be removed. She stated
there was no way a 911 call in Kenai or Mat-Su would
automatically go to Anchorage. She believed more vetting
was needed. She wanted to ensure Alaskans were receiving
the best service needed.
4:51:57 PM
AT EASE
4:52:19 PM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Gara spoke to his objection. He stated that the
previous amendment had been related to getting rid of honey
buckets. He elaborated that in 2018 there were still
communities with honey buckets and a large portion of the
state could not call 911 in the event of an emergency. The
intent of the E-911 program was to expand to communities
that did not have the service, which he believed was
important. He believed the service should be extended to
all Alaskans.
Representative Kawasaki was opposed to the amendment. He
shared that the Department of Public Safety finance
subcommittee had looked at the issue. He found it alarming
that 92 percent of the state was not covered by a 911
person. The committee had heard in testimony that residents
in many villages had to call an 800 number. The 800 number
was routed back and forth (for calls outside of Fairbanks,
Anchorage, Ketchikan, Juneau, and Mat-Su) until it found
the right caller. He continued that calling 911 was
something four and five-year-old children were taught so
they understood how to call for help. He spoke to the
complexity of having to call an 800 number for help. There
were many places in Alaska that were not covered. Alaska
was one of three states without a statewide 911 system. He
elaborated that the original request had been for $9.5
million in total. The subcommittee saw it fit that the
system should get that direction with a statewide 911
program, but the system could be built out in pieces.
Representative Kawasaki continued that currently one in
four Alaskans lack conventional 911 services. He explained
that it was not only a rural Alaska issue. For example,
places like Eagle River did not have conventional 911
services. The appropriation addressed a critical and
necessary public safety need. He believed the amendment
would make a cut in the wrong direction. He believed if the
legislature wanted residents to feel safe at home, in
schools, and in communities, having access to 911 was a
very important service. He added that the issue was about
consolidation and centralization of 911 services and making
them less expensive for municipalities. Fairbanks had built
a fairly large 911 system when it built a new facility,
used by the City of North Pole and other areawide public
safety groups. He believed the University of Alaska
Fairbanks police department was also utilizing the service.
He believed consolidation was the way to go when it came to
difficult budget times. He reiterated his opposition to the
amendment.
4:56:34 PM
Representative Pruitt was conflicted on the amendment for
two reasons. He was concerned that the budget had grown.
But he also knew what it was like to roll out of an
airplane and have no idea what would happen next. He shared
that no one had known where the plane was, and he could
only imagine someone in the same circumstance not being
able to reach anyone. He did not want anyone else to go
through that experience.
Representative Wilson replied that emergency responders
would find people because of updated technology and
programming, not because the system was located in
Anchorage. She stated it was about triangulating positions.
She thought consolidating to one facility in Anchorage and
closing down facilities in Mat-Su and Kenai would make it
less safe because the local municipalities who currently
had contracts would have to take on more costs. She
emphasized that the calls would still come into the
communities. She stated if the issue was about
consolidating they would close Ketchikan and Fairbanks as
well. She would be supportive if the money was spent on
upgrades to include cell phones. She stated the money was
instead going to renovate a facility in Anchorage to begin
putting the lines in versus putting in computer programming
needed to locate someone lost on a snow machine or if a
crash occurred somewhere. She reiterated the issue was
about the programming and not where the programming was
located. She believed the state needed to be spending its
money on ensuring the newest and best technology was
available. She added that having four locations meant there
were backup access points in case one location went down.
She did not believe the money would be used for
consolidation or program upgrading.
4:59:43 PM
Representative Kawasaki MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Tilton, Wilson, Thompson
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Pruitt,
Seaton, Foster
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 8 FAILED (3/8).
5:00:38 PM
RECESSED
[Note: the meeting never reconvened. See 5/12/18, 7:46 p.m.
minutes.]
CSSB 142(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
5:00:38 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 142 HCS Amendments HFIN.pdf |
HFIN 5/11/2018 11:00:00 AM |
SB 142 |
| SB 142 HCS Amendment 30.pdf |
HFIN 5/11/2018 11:00:00 AM |
SB 142 |